When May My New Jersey Alimony Be Terminated As Opposed To Just Being Lowered?

June 10, 2017
By
Edward R. Weinstein

Share

Ever since New Jersey’s alimony laws received a major overhaul last
year, my New Jersey divorce law firm has been busy filing motions in New
Jersey Family Courts seeking to terminate alimony payments to their ex-spouse.
Some parties want to have their alimony obligations reduced while others
seek to terminate alimony entirely. Our attorneys understand that terminating
alimony is much different than modifying alimony. Therefore, we analyze
the facts of each particular case in order to provide a legal opinion
as to the likelihood of the outcome in the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Let’s take for example a case decided December 31, 2014, where the
court denied a party’s motion to have his alimony obligations terminated.

In
Bechtold v. Clauss, the parties married in 1988 and divorced in 2008. Two children were born
of the marriage. The couple agreed that the wife would not work outside
of the marital home so she could be home with the young children.When
the parties divorced, the wife intended to go back to school to become
a registered nurse. Pursuant to the parties’ property settlement
agreement, the wife would be able to go to school to pursue a registered
nurse degree so that she could begin to financially provide for herself.
Furthermore, the agreement provided that the husband would pay $35,000
toward his ex-wife’s schooling from his share of the marital home’s equity.

The property settlement agreement also outlined alimony obligations and
scenarios in which alimony could be modified or terminated. Pursuant to
the agreement, alimony could only be modified if either of the parties
showed that the circumstances had changed. The most obvious changed circumstance
that was contemplated in the settlement agreement was the wife’s
completion of her education. Specifically, if the wife had successfully
obtained her license to be a registered nurse and found employment, it
might be possible for the husband to have his alimony obligations modified.

In addition to modification, the settlement agreement discussed the possibility
of having alimony terminated entirely. The husband’s alimony obligations
would be terminated in the event of either party’s death or his
ex-wife’s remarriage. Furthermore, the agreement provided that alimony
obligations might terminate when the wife was a working nurse. However,
the court would have to look carefully analyze the facts surrounding the
situation before granting such a request.

In December 2011, the wife graduated from nursing school and obtained her
license to be a registered nurse. She began working in June 2012, earning
$66,450 a year to start off. At that point in time, her ex-husband was
earning $139,235 per year.

In January 2013, the husband filed a motion to terminate alimony based
on changed circumstances. He alleged that he should no longer have to
pay alimony to his ex-wife because she was a successful registered nurse.
The wife filed a cross-motion opposing the relief her ex-husband sought.
The trial court found for the wife. Instead of terminating alimony entirely,
the judge reduced the alimony payments to $350 per week. The husband appealed.

On appeal, the husband argued that the trial judge abused his discretion
by not terminating alimony. Yet, the Appellate Division affirmed the findings
of the lower court. It agreed with the trial court that the husband was
not credible in his testimony as to his financial constraints because
he was constantly making improvements to his vacation home after the divorce
had been finalized. The husband should have been honest with the Court
in this regard.

In addition, the Appellate Division looked at the trial court’s analysis
of the wife’s lifestyle and cost of living since the divorce. The
court looked at the factors set forth in New Jersey’s alimony statute,
N.J.S.A.2A:24-23(b) and found that the wife could not maintain a lifestyle comparable to that
enjoyed during her marriage without some amount of alimony. The fact that
she had obtained employment as contemplated in the property settlement
agreement did not mean that she was fully capable of supporting herself
without any help (i.e., alimony).

Had the wife’s starting salary been much higher, the court might
have considered terminating alimony. Yet, the facts were not in the husband’s
favor for complete termination of his alimony obligation to his ex-wife.
The ultimate takeaway from the
Bechtold case is that a motion to terminate alimony is rarely easily granted. The
court will always look deep into the facts surrounding the case before
granting such a request.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.